OLA 1957 Flashcards
(27 cards)
What does OLA 1957 regulate?
Regulates duty which an occupier of premises owes to his VISITORS in respect of dangers due to the state of the premises or things done or omitted to be done on them (s.1 OLA 1957)
What does s 2(1) of OLA 1957 state?
An occupier of premises owes a common duty of care to all his visitors to the premises
What does s 2(2) of OLA 1957 state?
Duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be here.
= So there is NO duty to provide absolute safety!
Does an occupier of a premises have to provide absolute safety?
No!
The visitor must be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted to be here.
What happened in the case: “Tedstone v Bourne Leisure Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 414”?
Older woman slipped on water next to a jacuzzi at a leisure facility. She sued them under OLA 1957 claiming they had failed to take reasonable care to ensure her safety.
Held: the water spillage was sudden, there was no evidence of a longer-term hazard. The company had adequate cleaning systems in place and could not have been expected to prevent a hazard that arose only seconds before an accident.
== Occupiers are NOT insurers of safety, they do NOT have to provide absolute safety!
What happened in the case: “White Lion Hotel v Deborah Jayne James (2021)”
In the early morning, an adult man fell to his death from a hotel window while smoking. The window had a low sill height of 460mm, below modern safety recommendations of 800mm, and lacked window restrictors.
Held: Under s 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, occupiers must ensure visitors are reasonably safe. The court found the hotel liable, noting it should have foreseen that guests might be tired or inattentive. However, contributory negligence applied—damages were reduced by 60%, as the man contributed to his injury by sitting on the window sill.
Which groups are owed a different duty of care?
- Children
- Skilled visitors
What does s 2(3)(a) of OLA 1957 state?
s 2(3)(a): “an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults”
Is the duty of care towards children greater or lower?
A greater duty owed to children! = GREATER STANDARD OF CARE
What are two doctrines that have been commonly applied in cases including children?
- Doctrine of allurement
- Doctrine of implied permission
What is the doctrine of implied permission?
Children may have implied permission to be on a defendant premises if there are inadequate precautions to stop them.
What is the doctrine of allurement?
Defendant may be liable if objects on the defendant’s premise are an allurement to children.
What happened in the case of Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922)?
In Glasgow Corporation v Taylor (1922), a 7yo boy died after eating poisonous berries in a public park. The plant was unfenced and posed an obvious danger.
Held: The corporation was liable under the allurement principle, as they failed to protect children from a known, attractive hazard.
What happened in the case of Edwards v Railway Executive (1952)?
Edwards v Railway Executive [1952]
A nine-year-old boy was injured after accessing a railway line through a fence separating it from a nearby public playground. Although children frequently breached the fence, the Railway Executive regularly repaired it when damage was noticed. On the day of the incident, the fence had been intact earlier that morning.
Held: The House of Lords found the child to be a trespasser, and the Railway Executive had taken reasonable precautions to prevent access. They were therefore not liable.
! Note: Had the fence been damaged and left unrepaired for a significant time, liability may have been imposed due to a failure to maintain adequate safety measures. !
What about very young children? (eg. below 7yo)
Case law balances responsibility between children & parents!
A defendant must escape liability for very young children who should be under supervision
What happened in Phipps v Rochester Corp (1955)?
Phipps v Rochester Corporation [1955]
A five-year-old boy, accompanied by his seven-year-old sister, was injured after falling into a trench on open land owned by the Rochester Corporation. The land was commonly used by local children for play, and the Corporation was aware of this.
Held: The court dismissed the claim, holding that the Corporation was not liable. The judge held that occupiers can assume very young children will be supervised by their parents, meaning the primary responsibility lay with the parents, not the occupier.
What does 2(3)(b) of OLA 1957 state?
s 2(3)(b) - skilled visitors are expected to guard against special risks relevant to their work.
e.g. plumbers/ lift engineers / electricians
== LOWER STANDARD OF CARE
What happened in Roles v Nathan (1963)?
Two chimney sweeps died from carbon monoxide poisoning while cleaning a boiler flue. The occupier had warned them multiple times about the dangers of the flue and instructed them to take safety precautions, including leaving the area until it was safe. They ignored the warnings and continued working.
Held: The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, holding that the occupier was not liable. The risk was one incident to the sweeps’ specialist trade, and they were expected to take precautions as skilled professionals.
Principle: Occupiers are generally not liable for risks related to a specialist visitor’s work, provided adequate warnings are given.
What are two special defences occupiers can use under OLA 1957?
- warnings
- use of independent contractors
What does 2(4)(a) of OLA 1957 state?
Warnings - special defence!
Lord Denning used the example of someone needing to cross an unsafe bridge. A warning sign would not be enough. It would be enough if the sign said the bridge was unsafe and indicated the location of another bridge. The greater the risk, the more obvious the warning must be.
Whether this defence is effective depends on the warning itself!
What happened in Rae v Mars (1990)?
Rae v Mars (UK) Ltd [1990]
A surveyor visiting a vacant factory owned by Mars fell into a deep pit just inside a dark, unlit shed. Although a warning notice was present, the danger was not visible or avoidable.
Held: The court found the occupier liable. The warning alone was insufficient due to the immediacy and severity of the hazard. Reasonable care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 required more effective measures, such as physical barriers or improved lighting and signage.
Principle: Where a danger is extreme or concealed, a mere warning may not discharge the occupier’s duty of care.
What happened in Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)?
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003]
An 18-year-old man ignored warning signs and dived into a disused quarry lake in a public park, suffering paralysis due to shallow water. He sued under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, claiming the Council failed to ensure safety.
Held: The House of Lords held that the Council was not liable. The risk was obvious, and the injury resulted from Mr. Tomlinson’s voluntary actions, not the state of the premises.
Principle: Occupiers are not required to warn against or prevent obvious dangers, especially when injury arises from the claimant’s own risk-taking behaviour.
What does 2(4)(b) of OLA 1957 state?
Use of independent contractors - special defence!
s 2(4)(b) - An occupier will not be liable for the harm caused by the work of an independent contractor provided that:
- It is reasonable to use a contractor
- They take reasonable steps to ensure the contractor is competent
- If nature of the work is such that the occupier can check it is done properly
What are the 3 conditions that are necessary for an occupier to be held not liable when using independent contractors?
- It is reasonable to use a contractor
- They take reasonable steps to ensure the contractor is competent
- If nature of the work is such that the occupier can check it is done properly
